EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT … · literature as the “shifting baseline perspective”...

EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT WILDLAND FIRES IN FORESTS BUT WERE AFRAID

TO ASK: LESSONS LEARNED, WAYS FORWARD

Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph. D

Chief Scientist, Geos Institut e

Timothy Ingalsbee, Ph. D,

Fire F ighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecolog y

Chad T. Hanson, Ph. D

John Muir Project

March 30, 2018

Salmon August fire in the Marble Mountains, California (L. Ruediger)

Everything You Wanted to Know About Wildland Fires Page | 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wildfires are a fact of life for westerners. They mark the beginning of the spring season and

have been a keystone architect of biodiverse ecosystems for millennia. While wildfires are not

eco-catastrophes, they are a health concern, evoke public fear-of-fire exploited by decision

makers seeking to push through anti-environmental policies, and generate conflicts over the

best ways to coexist with this force of Nature that is not going away (nor should it), no matter

how hard we try. This white paper summarizes some of the latest science around top-line

wildfire issues, including areas of scientific agreement, disagreement, and ways to coexist with

wildfire. It is a synopsis of current literature written for a lay audience and focused on six major

fire topics:

1. Are wildfires ecological catastrophes?

2. Are acres burning increasing in forested areas?

3. Is high severity fire within large fire complexes (so called “mega-fires”) increasing?

4. What’s driving the recent increase in burned acres?

5. Does “active management” reduce wildfire occurrence or intensity?

6. Will more wildfire suppression spending make us safer?

Key findings

► Large wildland fire complexes, including patches of high severity fire, generate critical

ecological pulses of dead trees (biological legacies) that are associated with extraordinary

levels of biodiversity under-appreciated by most.

► Using long historical timelines, wildfire acres are currently at historical lows, but have been

increasing in recent decades due mainly to three factors: (1) climate change; (2) human-

caused fire ignitions (including suppression firing operations such as burnout and backfires);

and (3) conversion of fire-resilient native forests to flammable plantations that experience

relatively more high fire severity fire.

► Throwing more money at fire suppression will not abate fire concerns as more and more

homes are built in indefensible places and are not designed or built with fire-resistant

materials.

► Post-fire logging and associated activities (including roads) are unequivocally damaging to

fire-rejuvenated forests and related aquatic ecosystems.

► Thinning small trees and prescribed burning can lower fire intensity at the stand level if done

properly but this has significant limitations and ecological consequences given the scale of

the perceived need and a changing climate.

► The most effective pathway to fire coexistence is to: (1) limit ex-urban sprawl through land-

use zoning; (2) lower existing home ignition factors by working from the home-out with

vegetation management and home retrofitting (defensible space), instead of the wildlands-in


(logging); (3) thin small trees and prescribe burn in ecologically appropriate settings (e.g.,

flammable plantations) while prioritizing wildland fire use in most forests away from homes;

(4) store more carbon in ecosystems by protecting public forests and incentivizing carbon

stewardship on non-federal lands; and (5) shift to a low-carbon economy as quickly as

possible. Anything else will not achieve desired results to scale.

Issue 1: Are Wildfires “Catastrophic” or “Disastrous” Events?

Background Large landscape wildfires are most often referred to as catastrophic “mass fires” or

“megafires.” Demonizing wildfires has placed this natural process in the same conversation as

hurricanes and floods. Such disaster-speak and presumed logging remedies are now inculcated

in the “Wildfire Disaster Funding Act” (emphasis added) recently passed by Congress as part of

federal omnibus appropriations that also included rollbacks to forest protections. But what

really goes on after a wildfire may be surprising in terms of the high biodiversity and

rejuvenation capacity of forests after large fires, including severe ones.

In general, fire effects are the result of heat energy released during a fire (fire intensity – left

photos) and resulting effects on ecosystems (fire severity, right). Most large fires (right)

produce a mosaic of burn severity effects on vegetation (H-high severity, M-moderate, U-


unburned, L-low). Fire-mediated landscape heterogeneity is habitat for a diverse assortment of

species distributed across the successional gradient (new to old forests) and has been referred

to as “pyrodiversity begets biodiversity” (see below)1. Note – in some cases a fast-moving high-

intensity “running” surface fire can produce low severity effects, while a slow-moving low

intensity “creeping” fire can produce high severity effects (e.g., smoldering piles of slash or

logs).

Issue 2: Are Total Wildfire Acres Burning Increasing (independent of severity)?

Background Nearly every fire season, the news media and politicians announce another “unprecedented”

wildfire season. Such proclamations are incorrectly based on comparisons of contemporary

wildfire acres to a recent historical timeline. This has been widely criticized in the scientific

literature as the “shifting baseline perspective” (i.e., when a baseline is shifted to a more recent

historical time period)2. Importantly, in the early part of the 20th century during a warm climatic

cycle (Pacific Decadal Oscillation - PDO), wildfire acres were at least five times more abundant

than today. A mid-century cool down accompanied by industrial fire suppression resulted in a

substantial decline in acres burning3. The current warm period is associated with a recent

increase in both acres burning and fire suppression (see below). In other words, wildfire activity

tracks broad-scale climatic phenomenon (top-down drivers) that also influence fire suppression

efficacy.

1 DellaSala, D.A., and C.T. Hanson. 2015. The ecological importance of mixed-severity fires: nature’s phoenix. Elsevier: Boston. 2 See Jackson, B.C., et al. 2011. Shifting baselines. Island Press: DC. 3 For an excellent historical resource read NY Times Best Seller, Timothy Egan’s “The Big Burn.” Mariner Books: NY.


Figure interpretation caveats: prior to 1984, standardized datasets are difficult to obtain.

Contemporary wildfires also have a strong back-burning influence not prevalent in historical

times–i.e., errors in estimation exist on both ends of the wildfire acreage continuum. However,

historical accounts (including General Land Office records and pollen-sediment core analyses)

confirm very active fire seasons in the early part of the 20th century and before4 (Figure

compliments of John Muir Project).

Areas of Agreement Fewer wildfire acres burning in forests today compared to the early 20th century has resulted in

what many are calling a wildland fire deficit5, which may seem as a surprise given fire

hyperbole. The main exception to this deficit is southern California chaparral and shrub-steppe

communities (too much human-caused fire is leading to ecosystem type conversions).

Areas of Disagreement Current science debate is focused mainly on what is the best way for putting fire (i.e., “the right

fire” “good fire”) back on the landscape in order to restore wildland fire-forest relationships.

4 Whitlock, C., et al. 2008. Long-term relations among fire, fuel, and climate in the north-western US based on lake-sediment studies. Int. J. Wildland Fire 17:72-83. Baker, W.L., and M.A. Williams. 2018. Land surveys show regional variability of historical fire regimes and dry forest structure of the western United States. Ecol. Applic. 28:284-290. 5 Parks, S.A. et al. 2015. Wildland fire deficit and surplus in the western United States, 1984-2012. Ecosphere 6:275. 13 pp.


Many claim that this cannot be done safely without massive thinning to reduce “fuels”6, others

state that we need to get to coexistence with wildland fire as the amount of thinning needed is

prohibitively costly7, and has significant consequences to ecosystems (see below). Still others

want more of the “right kind” of fire in the “right places”– meaning less high severity fire,

despite ecological importance of this type in low to mid elevation pine and mixed conifer

forests (i.e., even predominately low severity ponderosa pine systems have a component of

high severity) throughout the West.

Issue 3: Is High Severity Fire Within Wildland Fire Complexes Increasing?

Background High severity fires that kill most of the trees in older forests are associated with extraordinary

levels of biodiversity not present in low severity burns due mainly to the abundance of

biological legacies (e.g., snags and down logs, shrubs)8. This fact is now widely accepted by the

scientific community; however, the amount and spatial distribution of high severity fire patches

within wildland fire complexes remains in question as to whether ecosystem thresholds are

being crossed in large fires.

6 Hessburg, P.F., et al. 2015. Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landscape Ecol. 30:1805-1835. 7 Moritz, M.A., et a. 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 515:58-66. 8 Donato, D.C., J.L. Campbell, and J.F. Franklin. 2012. Multiple successional pathways and precocity in forest development: can some forests be born complex? J. Vegetation Science 23:576-585. DellaSala, D.A. and C.T. Hanson. 2015. The ecological importance of mixed-severity fires: nature’s phoenix. Elsevier: Boston.


Areas of Agreement Nearly all studies have detected no statistically significant trend in high severity acres or

proportion of high severity fire within large fire complexes (Colorado is an exception and there

is debate in the Sierra)9.

9 Keyser, A., and A. LeRoy Westerling. 2017. Climate drives inter-annual variability in probability of high severity fire occurrence in the western United States.

High Severity Fire Patches Become Biodiverse Snag Forests

Complex early seral

forest after 12 years of

natural conifer

regeneration, native

shrub patches, and

deciduous trees

(C. Hansen, Eldorado

Starr Fire, Sierra).

This figure shows no

discernable increase in

percent of various fire

severities in the Pacific

Northwest over a

three-decade period

(compliments of Bev

Law, Oregon State

University). Data prior

to 1984 are not

available for fire

severity comparisons.


Areas of Disagreement Concern has now shifted to whether the size of high severity patches is increasing, believed to

be a product of 21st century “mega-fires,” and whether this is leading to type conversions

(forests to shrubs)10. High severity patch data obtained from hundreds of forest fires across the

West show no statistical increase in patch sizes in recent decades (DellaSala et al. in peer

review). This is important as the patch size debate is used to make claims about “mega-fires”

and to justify large-scale thinning, post-fire logging, and tree planting based on perceptions of

inadequate tree recruitment or lack of forest resilience to fires. However, most high severity

patches have high levels of internal heterogeneity that include small patches of live trees or

nearby low-moderate burn areas as seed sources (in review).

Issue 4: What’s Driving Recent Increases in Wildfire Acres Burning?

Background and Areas of Agreement Recent increases in wildfire acres burning (see above PDO figure) can be traced to three main

factors acting in concert: (1) a warming PDO from climate change; (2) increases in human-

caused fire starts (accidental, arson, back burns); and (3) conversion of native forests to

flammable tree plantations11.

Over half of recent increases in wildfire acres burning has been attributed to climate change12

(see top figure below as generalization) with 84% of all fire ignitions nationwide in recent

decades caused by people (bottom figure below)13. Human-caused wildfire ignitions vary

regionally based on population densities and remoteness.

10 Hessburg P.F. et al. 2015. Restoring fire-prone inland Pacific landscapes: Seven core principles. Landscape Ecology 30, 1805–1835. 11Bradley, C., C.T. Hanson, and D.A. DellaSala. 2016. Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent-fire forests of the western United States? Ecosphere 7:1-13. Odion, D.C., et al. 2004. Fire severity patterns and forest management in the Klamath National Forest, northwest California, USA. Conservation Biology 18:927-936 12 Abatzoglou J.T., and A.P. Williams. 2016. Does Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. PNAS 113:11770-11775 13 Balch et al. 2017. Human-started wildfire expand the fire niche across the United States. PNAS 114:2946-2951.


Areas of Disagreement While most land managers and decision makers are preoccupied with “fuels,” two of the main

drivers of fire behavior (climate change, human-caused ignitions) are largely ignored (except

when used to justify logging for forest resilience). Additionally, roads (a principal source of

human-caused fire ignitions) are almost never addressed in fire risk reduction measures.

Uncertainty exists regarding whether large-scale thinning will work in a changing climate where

fire behavior will be increasingly governed by extreme fire weather (high temperatures, low soil

moisture, high winds, see below)14. Storing more carbon in ecosystems will help mitigate

climate effects, although land managers often prioritize generating revenue from commercial

sales over carbon storage15.

Issue 5: Does “Active Management” Reduce Wildfire Intensity and Lower Fire Risks?

Background Active management encompasses a wide spectrum of actions and opinions mostly focused on

pre- (thinning) and post-fire (“salvage” logging) logging widely debated by scientists,

conservation groups, and decision makers. This is arguably the number one area of fire-related

conflicts on public lands with the underlying assumption that forests are overstocked, they

need active management to reduce fire risks, and environmental safeguards are preventing

management of forests that otherwise will burn out of control.

Areas of Agreement Post-fire logging is unequivocally damaging to the pyrodiverse landscapes and complex early

seral forests. In general, the larger the fire, the bigger the logging project16. Post-fire logging

involves clearcutting both live and mostly dead trees, kills naturally regenerating conifers, and

often is followed by herbicides to reduce competing yet beneficial vegetation and allow for

subsequent planting of artificially grown trees (from nursery stock) in dense rows. As artificial

plantations increasingly replace native forests, plantations act as kindling for intense fires (i.e.,

14 Cary, G.J. et al. 2016. Importance of fuel treatment for limiting moderate-to-high intensity fire: findings from comparative fire modeling. Landscape Ecol. 32:1473–1483. Kalies, E.L., and L.L.Y. Kent. 2016. Tamm review: are fuel treatments effective at achieving ecological and social objectives? A systematic review. Forest Ecology and Management 375:84-95. 15 Moritz, M.A. et al. 2014 (ibid). Law, B.E et al. 2018. Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. PNAS http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720064115 16 DellaSala, D.A., et al. 2015. In the aftermath of fire: logging and related actions degrade mixed- and high-severity burn areas. Pp. 313-347, In DellaSala, D.A., and C.T. Hanson (eds), The ecological importance of mixed-severity fires: nature’s phoenix. Elsevier, United Kingdom


“fire’s gasoline”)17. Post-fire logging creates a catastrophic feedback loop where fires in older

forests create ecologically beneficial snag forests, those forests are then clearcut and replanted

with small trees in dense rows lacking structural complexity, only to burn in higher intensities

and so on (see figure below)17,18. Legacy trees removed by logging operations anchor soils,

provide shade for developing seedlings, “nurse logs” for new growth and soil moisture

retention for amphibians and invertebrates, habitat for aquatic species when snags fall into

streams, and they store vast amounts of carbon as they slowly (decades to centuries)

decompose. The scientific community is generally at consensus with regard to post-fire logging

as damaging to ecosystems19, particularly to spotted owl habitat20.

17 Odion, D.C., et al. 2004. Ibid. Thompson, J.R., et al. 2007. Reburn severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a large wildfire. PNAS 104:10743-10748. 18 Bradley, C.M., et al. 2016. Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent-fire forests of the western United States? Ecosphere 7:1-13. 19 Lindenmayer, D.B., P.J. Burton, and J.F. Franklin. 2008. Salvage logging and its ecological consequences. Island Press: Washington, D.C. 20 C.T. Hanson, M.L. Bond, and D.E. Lee. 2018. Effects of post-fire logging on California spotted owl occupancy. Nature Conservation 24:93-105.

Fire in a mature forest

produces complex early

seral (snag) forest that

connects the stages of

forest development

through time. This cycle

is interrupted by post-

fire logging and tree

planting leading to type

conversions (native

forest to flammable

plantation) and

unnatural fire severity.


Areas of Disagreement In contrast to post-fire logging, thinning involves partial logging of trees for various purposes,

including reducing competition among nearby trees, increasing tree vigor, and accelerating tree

growth (e.g., in wet forests it is commonly used to accelerate development of older forest

conditions as specified under the Northwest Forest Plan). Thinning also is commonly used to

reduce “fuels” in dry forests and has support in the scientific community and with NGOs. When

done properly, thinning of small trees followed by prescribed burning14, or prescribed burning

alone in some cases21, can reduce fire intensity. However, it remains controversial, has

significant ecological consequences (short and long-term), and substantial limitations given high

costs and the massive scale believed needed to influence fire behavior especially in a changing

climate (Box 1).

21 Zachmann, L.J., D.W.H. Shaw, and B.G. Dickson. 2018. Prescribed fire and natural recovery produce similar long-term patterns of change in forest structure in the Lake Tahoe basin, California. Forest Ecol. & Manage. 409:276-287

Large trees (dbh inches marked on trees) marked for removal on a BLM “fuels” project, southwest Oregon (L. Ruediger).


Box 1. General limitations of thinning (and collateral ecosystem damages)

(1) Thinning reduces habitat for canopy dependent species, including spotted owls22,

requires an expansive road network damaging to aquatics, can spread invasive and

flammable weeds, and, when implemented over large landscapes, releases more carbon

emissions than fires, even severe ones23.

(2) There is a very low probability (3-8%) that a thinned forest will encounter a fire during

the narrow period (10-20 years depending on site factors) of reduced “fuels” 24, resulting

in large-scale thinning proposals that alter forest conditions over large areas6.

(3) Excessive thinning (e.g., reducing bulk crown density below 60%) can increase wind

speeds and solar radiation to the ground causing increased flammable vegetation growth

and fire spread.

(4) Thinning needs to be followed by prescribed fire to reduce flammable slash but this can

cause soil damage especially if burning is concentrated in piles (intensifies heat effects.

(5) Thinning is seldom cost effective without public subsidies or removing large fire-resistant

trees.

(6) In some regions (Sierra, Klamath-Siskiyou), time since fire is not associated with

increasing fire risks (i.e., as forests mature, they become less flammable25).

(7) Thinning efficacy is limited under extreme fire weather (principal factor governing large

fires).

(8) At regional scales, active management (unspecified forms of logging) have been

associated with uncharacteristic levels of high severity fires (see figure below)26.

22 Odion, D.C., et al. 2014. Effects of fire and commercial thinning on future habitat of the northern spotted owl. Open Ecology Journal 7:37-51. 23 Campbell, J.L., M.E. Harmon, and S.R. Mitchell. 2012. Can fuel-reduction treatments really increase forest carbon storage in western US by reducing future fire emissions? Frontiers in Ecol. & Environ. doi:10.1890/110057 24 Rhodes, J.J., and W.L. Baker. 2008. Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological tradeoffs. The Open Forest Science Journal, 2008, 1, 1-7 25 Odion, D.C., et al. 2004. Fire severity patterns and forest management in the Klamath National Forest, northwest California, USA. Conservation Biology 18:927-936. Zachmann, L.J., et al. 2018. Ibid. 26 Bradley, C.M., C.T. Hanson, and D.A. DellaSala. 2016. Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent-fire forests of the western United States? Ecosphere 7: Ecosphere 7:1-13.


Burn severity as a

function of

protection levels

from lower burn

severity in

Wilderness and

National Parks

(green) to greater

high severity

amounts in

actively managed

areas (red)26.

Figure prepared

by C. Bradley,

CBD.

Issue 6: Will More Suppression Spending Make Us Safer?

Background On March 21, 2018, Congress passed an omnibus spending package that established a

dedicated wildfire “disaster” fund of > $2 billion per year that would increase steadily over a 10-

year period. Spending measures include expanding the use of controversial categorical

Thinning on the

Deschutes

National Forest,

Oregon

(G. Wuerthner).


exclusions for logging projects up to 3,000 acres each that can conceivably be located adjacent

to one another with no regard for cumulative impacts.

Areas of Agreement and Disagreement (combined) While conservation groups pushed for a rider-free wildfire spending fix, throwing more money

at fire suppression while expecting fewer fires is highly uncertain. In many ways, the two figures

below illustrate the common definition of crazy – doing the same thing over and over again but

expecting a different outcome. In sum, both acres burning and wildfire suppression costs of the

Forest Service have risen dramatically over the past three decades (top figure) calling into

question whether more money will achieve fewer fires or less acres burning. Interestingly, in

some years (e.g., 2006-2012, bottom figure) total wildfire ignitions steadily dropped while costs

generally rose presumably from fighting more fires in remote areas and few controls on

spending27 (figures prepared by J. Leonard, Geos Institute using fire data from National

Interagency Fire Center28).

27Ingalsbee, T., and U. Raja. 2015. The rising cost of wildfire suppression and the case for ecological fire use. Pp. 348-317 In: D.A. DellaSala, C.T. Hanson (eds.). The ecological importance of mixed-severity fires: nature’s phoenix. Elsevier: Boston. 28 https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html

$-

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

Am

ou

nt

Spe

nt

by

Fore

st S

erv

ice

Acr

es

Bu

rne

d

Acres Burned and Amount Spent by Year

Burn acres Forest Service Cost


As an example of unmitigated suppression spending, the 132,127-acre Soberanes fire in

California (started by an illegal campfire) cost ~$236 million (nearly $1800 per acre) and

deployed thousands of fire fighters and numerous air-tankers, making it the most expensive

wildfire to fight in US history. Although the fire destroyed 57 homes (and took the life of a

bulldozer operator), suppression forces were used on the fire as it burned safely in the back

country far removed from homes. The fire was eventually extinguished by fall rains.

Conclusion: Moving Forward in the New Climate Wildfire Era

When it comes to fire, we each see what we want: land managers view the world as ready-to-

burn ecosystems just lacking an ignition source and needing “fuels” reduction; ecologists see

habitat restored by wildfires as part of the circle of life and death in a forest; the public fears

fire and understandably has concerns about smoke emissions; the media portrays death and

destruction during fires; conservation groups are either for or against large-scale thinning; and

politicians race to sensationalize fire to justify increased commercial logging on public lands.

This is no doubt the most difficult public lands issue we have ever faced as its wrapped in

emotion, human health, self-interests, avarice, hyperbole, point-counter point arguments, and

nearly everyone wants to do something – even if doing something is worse than the perceived

problem. Moving beyond this will require communicating about fire with empathy and clear

intent especially while recognizing genuine fear and health issues. It will involve a combination

of science publications, public support for managing wildfires for ecosystem benefits (once

safety has been addressed), tolerance for temporary smoke levels, and our own limitations in

being able to influence ecological processes increasingly governed by top-down drivers

(climate) rather than bottom up forest management. Based on climate change models, extreme

$-

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Am

ou

nt

Spe

nt

by

Fore

st S

erv

ice

Nu

mb

er

of

Fire

sNumber of Fires and Amount Spent by Year

No. Fires Forest Service Cost


fire conditions are predicted to be more common this century and thus the extensive thinning

involved to theoretically reduce fire intensity (e.g., wide spacing among trees, open-park like

conditions) would create novel or greatly engineered forest systems that impact biodiversity

and ecosystem services (carbon stores, clean water) in undesirable ways.

Importantly, we need to solve for human safety with the most significant challenges coming

from ex-urban sprawl (enabled by scant land-use zoning and building in the wrong places), a

rapidly changing climate, an expanding logging footprint focused increasingly on extracting the

“new coal” (“feed stock”) for biomass burning. Rational fire approaches and communication

strategies that do not sacrifice native forests for perceived fire safety are an area of much

needed research and financial resources.

We know a lot more about wildfire today than in the last decade; however, much of the science

is still in debate, it almost always lags behind or is ignored by decision makers, land managers,

and even some scientists and conservation groups with entrenched views about fire (Box 2).

Box 2. What we know and do not know about wildfires.

► Complex early seral forests are as biodiverse as old growth, containing comparable levels

of species richness (although species composition varies across seral stages).

► Wildfire effects on vegetation are highly variable (mixed)29, calling into question fuel

reduction projects (especially those that use a shifting baseline) based on restoring forests

to an “historical” open park-like condition when there was a lot more variability and the

climate is changing.

► It will be impossible to mechanically treat the substantial acres alleged to need fuel

reduction to reduce fire intensity7 (58 million acres according to the Forest Service), and,

even if possible, this would have severe consequences to ecosystems, especially aquatics,

and come with substantial taxpayer funded costs.

► Thinning under extreme fire weather (“the new norm”) is highly uncertain in a changing

climate.

► Additional increases in homes built within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) (now

totaling 43.4 million)30 will result in more human-caused fire ignitions and out of control

suppression spending regardless of where the money comes from. Wildfire problems will

not abate if this growth along with climate change accelerates.

29Odion, D.C., et al. 2016. Areas of agreement and disagreement regarding ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest fire regimes: a dialogue with Stevens et al. PLoSOne DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0154579 May 19, 2016 30Radeloff, V., et al. 2018. Rapid growth of the US wildland -urban interface raises wildfire risk. PNAS http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718850115


There is no “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad” fire. Fire is a predatory force of Nature

resulting in ecological winners and losers (at least temporarily). We in the environmental

community do not speak of “good” wolves or “bad” mega-wolves (that eat sheep) yet the fire

debate embraces this terminology. In sum, we do not have a fire problem per se but rather a

people management problem – homes built in the wrong places and with the wrong materials,

fire-fighters dropped into unsafe areas, hyped-up thinning projects that may or may not work,

and a rapidly changing climate that will produce surprises.

There are plenty of management options that are compatible with western forest resilience and

fire-mediated biodiversity in a changing climate, including:

► Removing land-use stressors (e.g., mining, livestock, Off Highway Vehicle impacts that

accumulate in space and time) so that ecosystems can adapt to climate change;

► Maintaining viable populations of imperiled species and habitats, including climate

sanctuaries such as older forests, forests on north-facing slopes, and riparian areas31;

► Curtailing the spread of invasive species;

► Managing wildfires for ecosystem benefits and prescribed fire in appropriate types;

► Thinning and girdling (killing) small trees in young plantations (along with prescribed

fire) to increase structural complexity and reduce fire intensity (but see limitations

discussion);

► Replacing ineffective culverts (especially important in areas where climate change will

trigger more floods); restoring floodplains so they can naturally store more water (e.g.,

reintroducing beavers) and attenuate floods; and removing damaging roads by re-

contouring the road prism to natural features (e.g., to reduce sediments to streams and

improve hydrological functions);

► Managing for connectivity (up-down elevation, latitudinal-longitudinal gradients); and

► Storing more carbon in forest ecosystems (see climate robust strategies).

31Olson, D.M., et al. 2012. Climate change refugia for biodiversity in the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal 32:65-74.


Importantly, managing wildfire for ecosystem benefits is not the same as “let burn.” Instead,

this involves monitoring wildfire behavior initially, targeting suppression at fires likely to spread

near towns, “loose-herding” and directing fire in the back-country under safe conditions,

cutting fire lines nearest homes, and keeping fire fighters out of harm’s way. The same fire can

be compartmentalized for different treatments. The Forest Service already has existing

authorities that allow them to use such approaches in deciding when to attempt to use

suppression vs. managing wildfire for ecosystem benefits32. Implementing this policy would

help keep spiraling wildfire suppression costs in check27.

In addition, local governments need to start embracing smart growth measures to limit sprawl

within the WUI. Fire safety for existing homes is about reducing risks from the home-out

(defensible space), rather than from the wildlands-in (logging)33. Defensible space has to

become as routine as changing the batteries in a home’s smoke detectors and building with

metal roofs the norm in home construction.

32 https://www.nifc.gov/policies/policies_documents/GIFWFMP.pdf 33 Syphard, A.D., T.J. Brennan, and J.E. Keeley. 2014. The role of defensible space for residential structure protection during wildfires. Int. J. Wildland Fire. http://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/WF13158

Climate robust conservation

means protecting carbon

dense forests nationwide as

a foundation for biodiversity

and ecosystem services,

reducing land-use stressors,

connecting landscapes for

wildlife migrations and

reducing carbon emissions

from logging. Fire safety

measures discussed herein

are compatible with this

overall strategy and

represent a comprehensive

path forward.


Fire prevention begins with

land-use planning that

limits growth in unsafe

areas and includes

defensible space

management (figure

prepared by A. Syphard,

CBI; historical Nixon photo

courtesy of San Francisco

Chronicle34; lower figure –

Homeowner fire safe guide

for Montana).

Potential synergies and framing messages around forest issues cut across public lands

campaigns that could benefit from working together, including the “keep it [carbon] in the

ground,” “350.org,” and a much needed “keep it [carbon] in the forest” campaign. For instance,

researchers at Oregon State University recently showed that the best way to increase carbon

stores in Northwest forests is to reduce federal lands logging by at least 50%, increase the

length of timber harvest rotations on private lands to 80 years, afforestation, and

reforestation35. Notably, wildfires are currently not a significant contributor to greenhouse gas

34 http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Skirball-Fire-recalls-1961-Bel-Air-inferno-that-12410921.php 35Law, B.E., et al. 2018. Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. PNAS www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720064115

Defensiblespace

Building0design

Fuelbreaks

Rx0Fire

Minorroads

Major0roads

Ignition0Cause0

Slope

Housing0arrangement&0location

Vegetation0type0&0connectivity

Firesuppression

Fire%weather


emissions, contrary to many assertions36. Importantly, the Northwest Forest Plan resulted in

ancillary climate benefits by shifting federal forest management from a substantial source of

logging emissions in the 1980s to a current “sink” (warehouse) for carbon storage due to

reduced (by 80%) timber harvest on federal lands37. As this forested warehouse continues to

accumulate carbon, it is critical to protect carbon-dense older forests on public lands and

incentivize forest carbon stewardship on non-federal lands. Making the link between climate

mitigation and intact forest conservation currently lacks the recognition needed to offset fossil

fuel emissions and keep the planet from heating above 2 C, which cannot be accomplished

without forests in the mix38.

The long-range prognosis for public lands forests is generally favorable. On the one hand,

conservation groups with significant support of the donor community have held the line on

decades of hard-fought victories centered on the Northwest Forest Plan and wilderness/

roadless protections. On the other hand, the pressure to develop forests is unprecedented

globally and regionally with an urgent need to solve for increasingly complex social, economic,

and engrained perceptions about forest management. Conservation science continues to be a

leading voice for public lands by supporting effective communications, grass-roots organizing

and campaigning, and responding to maladaptive climate policies by proposing climate robust

conservation strategies. When it comes to fire science, however, we have as many questions as

answers, more debate than consensus, but there have been important strides forward.

In closing, we have much work to do to change public attitudes about forest fires but optimism

begins when we open our hearts and minds to the intricate dance between green and burned

forest orchestrated by the natural disturbance processes that have been at play since the age of

dinosaurs and will continue in largely unpredictable ways in the emerging novel climate.

Preparing for these changes must be comprehensive, science-based, and solve for top-down

drivers of change while we hold the line and then expand on a robust conservation vision.

36Law, B.E., T.W. Hudiburg, and S. Luyssaert. 2013. Thinning effects on forest productivity: consequences of preserving old forests and mitigating impacts of fire and drought. Plant Ecol & Diversity 6:73-85. Mitchell, S. 2015. Carbon dynamics of mixed- and high-severity wildfires: pyrogenic CO2 emissions, postfire carbon balance, and succession. Pp. 290-312, In D.A. DellaSala, and C.T. Hanson. The ecological importance of mixed-severity fires: nature’s phoenix. Elsevier: Boston. Law et al. 2018 (ibid). 37Krankina, O.N., M.E. Harmon, F. Schnekenburger, and C.A. Sierra. 2012. Carbon balance on federal forest lands of Western Oregon and Washington: the impact of the Northwest Forest Plan. Forest Ecol. & Manage. 286:171-182 38https://primaryforest.org/

EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT … · literature as the “shifting baseline perspective”...

Documents

Transcript of EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT … · literature as the “shifting baseline perspective”...